Seguin ISD’s secret agreements troubling

Published 5:01 pm, Monday, March 13, 2017

The reasons for the departure of Sequin Independent School District Superintendent Stetson Roane, in the background, remains clouded, a disservice to district taxpayers and to future employers.

The reasons for the departure of Sequin Independent School District Superintendent Stetson Roane, in the background, remains clouded, a disservice to district taxpayers and to future employers.

Photo: JERRY LARA /San Antonio Express-News

Seguin ISD’s secret agreements troubling

1 / 1

Back to Gallery

Seguin ISD taxpayers are out $135,000, and they may never know what prompted the buyout of the contracts held by their superintendent and his wife.

The secret agreement reached between Superintendent Stetson Roane and the board allows him to exit with a neutral job reference, half a year’s salary and the buyout of the last four months of his wife’s contract for $40,000.

The superintendent’s sudden departure comes about a month after a complaint was lodged against him and the board placed him on paid leave. The board has made no public comment regarding the complaint, saying only that it is a personnel issue.

More troubling is a clause in Roane’s separation agreement that states, “SISD agrees that it will not report Roane or his resignation to the Texas Education Agency … or any other state or local agency regarding the allegations investigated, and those underlying his consideration for possible sanctions before his resignation.”

Taxpayers deserve to know why they are shelling out hard-earned tax dollars for a buyout approved on a split vote by their school board. The cloak of secrecy surrounding such agreements is also a disservice to future employers, who will remain in the dark about the circumstances prompting Roane’s early exit.

Roane’s troubled tenure with Seguin ISD began in the summer of 2015. His wife was recommended to fill a recently created post by a screening committee of administrators reporting to the superintendent. There were five other applicants for the $120,000-a-year job.

Later there was the controversial $1.3 million expenditure for a video scoreboard, described by the video scoreboard vender as the biggest in the country, for a stadium in a district with only 7,500 students.

Last summer, there was further public outcry when the district announced it was considering the purchase of a failing newspaper and a radio station. Fortunately, the purchase was abandoned before taxpayers were held responsible for ownership of a business venture that lost $90,000 the previous year.

A lot of distractions have cast a dark shadow over the district. It came as no surprise when three incumbent board members lost their seats in November.

Rebuilding public confidence in this beleaguered district is going to take time. More transparency on the superintendent’s departure would help.